> To: aur-general@archlinux.org> From: anthr...@archlinux.org > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:28:58 +0100 > Subject: Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Dustin Falgout > > On 03/02/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Levente Polyak <anthr...@archlinux.org> > > wrote: > >> That was fast, but I think you accidentally forgot to implement the most > >> important part of my feedback: It is not allowed to have no pkgname VCS > >> postfix (like -git) but pull from a git HEAD. > >> You either have to rename those packages or pull a static source like > >> github or upstream tarballs. In case of github tarballs remember to use > >> the source filename prefix to make them unique (like > >> lightdm-webkit-theme-userdock). > > > > The simplest way to make these "static" if you want to import them > > into [community] is to pin the git source using #commit=1234567. > > > > Also in that case, only if you have a sane reason to not stick to the > upstream released versions. If there is no real reason one should follow > the upstream released version so the commit hash should not be arbitrary > but the one of the release. > In general we want to follow upstream releases. > > cheers, > Levente
Hi Levente, I do have a sane reason indeed. Upstream is not following their github releases. If you look in openSUSE's package repo you will see that they are packaging the latest master as the most recently released version. Looking at the history of those packages it seems that whoever is maintaining the packages over at openSUSE does not use github releases in their release process on a regular basis. Considering that, it doesnt make sense to tag the end of the pkgname with "-git". If you are wondering why I didn't use the short version of the commit hash at the end of the pkgver, well that's simply a personal preference of mine (to use revision numbers instead). I hope that helps clear up any confusion as to why I chose to do it the way that I did. Cheers!Dustin
